More handpicked essays just for you.
The two lives of charlemagne review
The two lives of charlemagne review
The spread of christianity throughtout europe
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The two lives of charlemagne review
Charlemagne Charlemagne or “Charles the Great” was a great and successful ruler. He wasn’t just a ruler though he had other skills and abilities. Charlemagne loved music and to learn, he was a good hunter, strong athlete and a strong military leader. These skills will later help him with his rule and how he wants the society to be. Charlemagne was crowned the “Emperor of the Romans” because he helped Pope Leo III when he needed help against some Germans. It came as a surprise to Charlemagne being crowned. He didn’t really expect it, but when he finally realized it was happening, he preferred being called “King of the Franks.”
Charlemagne wanted to strengthen Europe, but how would he do it. He made everyone convert to Christianity to unify
Charlemagne is described by Janet Nelson as being a role model for Einhard. Einhard himself writes in the first paragraph of The Life of Charlemagne, “After I decided to write about the life, character and no small part of the accomplishments of my lord and foster father, Charles, that most excellent and deservedly famous king, I determined to do so with as much brevity as I could.” I feel that these are sincere words about the man who cared for Einhard. I feel that Einhard’s purpose for writing The Life of Charlemagne is to praise the works of his “foster-father” and create a historical document that would describe the great deeds of Charlemagne so that he would not be forgotten throughout time as a great leader and man.
The most famous work about Charlemagne is a book entitled The Two Lives of Charlemagne which consists of two separate biographies published into one book and tells the story of Charlemagne's life as two different people experienced it. Apart from this, there are many other places you can turn to learn more about the life of the king of the Franks, including letters, capitularies, inventories, annals, and more. However, each of these sources seem to paint a different picture of Charlemagne. In one, he seems to be a very average guy; in another, a mythical being, almost god-like; and a strong and firm political leader in yet another. It is because of this of this that we will never really know exactly who Charlemagne was or what he was like, but we do have an idea of what he did and how he lived thanks to those who decided to preserve it.
After reading two versions of “The Life of Charlemagne”, one written by a person who lived with Charlemagne, and one who didn’t, it is evident that Charlemagne is portrayed in a negative way by the author, the Monk of St. Gall, and in a positive way by Einhard. Einhard was very close to Charlemagne. He lived at the same time and with Charlemagne himself. His version of “The Life of Charlemagne” was writing right after his death. The Monk of St. Gall wrote his version more than 70 years after Charlemagne’s death. He did not live with or even at the same time as Charlemagne. This is probably one of the reasons the view on the ruler are completely different.
The two lives of Charlemagne as told by Einhard and Notker are two medieval sources about the accounts of the life Charlemagne. Modern sources by Matthew Innes and Rosamond Mckitterick discuss how history was recorded during the medieval period and how it was suppose to be viewed in the early ages. Observing each of these sources helps get an understanding of how the writing of history is important in recorded history and how it affected how the history of Charlemagne was recorded.
...become great and victorious. There is the concept of how everything that Charlemagne did was for his enemies to be converted to Christianity and nothing else. Through the different interpretations, the argument for religious motives was the strongest. Charlemagne used military tactics in a misguided attempt to further the kingdom of God.
Charlemagne is a known for his success to try to maintain his empire. This new empire will embrace the unity of Christian faith. Under Charlemagne, new lands are conquered and a Renaissance is embraced. He even tries to revive the Christian faith. Charlemagne is a man that hopes to be an inspiration to the next generation. These deeds of Charlemagne is seen in the Two Lives of Charlemagne. In the Two lives of Charlemagne, both Notker’s and Einhard’s goal is to portray Charlemagne as a man of good character, a man that accomplishes many deeds and a man that hopes to provide an outlet for the next generation.
Upon evaluating each empire, there are likings between both the Carolingian Empire and the Roman Empire, along with their leaders, Charlemagne and Augustus. Both leaders in their own veneration were experienced military men with dexterity in engaging in war to expand their sway and authority. Each had attained an abundance of land at the beginning of their sovereignty, and during their walk of life had exponentially accumulated an extensive empire. The crucial variance that permitted the Roman Empire to continue to withstand itself was the supervision of the
Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great, became the undisputed ruler of Western Europe, “By the sword and the cross.” (Compton’s 346) As Western Europe was deteriorating Charlemagne was crowned the privilege of being joint king of the Franks in 768 A.D. People of Western Europe, excluding the church followers, had all but forgotten the great gifts of education and arts that they had possessed at one time. Charlemagne solidly defeated barbarians and kings in identical fashion during his reign. Using the re-establishment of education and order, Charlemagne was able to save many political rights and restore culture in Western Europe.
...e had so far. The Church found that learning and culture was very important in spreading the beliefs of God. They wanted several people to start earning an education, so civilians could read the books that were related to cultural beliefs. These three traditions have impacted the Middle Ages during Charlemagne’s reign. He incorporated these studies from other cultures into his way of governing the country. His court and the Church were led by using these standards, which proves the equal balance of these two groups. The Western culture has changed in many ways, however, Charlemagne’s influence has not stopped becoming an impact throughout this culture and many more.
Julius Caesars birth marked the beginning of a new chapter in Rome. He was a Roman general and statesman who turned the Roman Republic into the powerful Roman Empire. When Caesar was away from Rome it began an era, the rule of Rome being held by men who successively held the name Caesar, by birth or adoption. Caesar had most of the power, he could form large armies. With the armies help it was possible to conquer new territories and have the pleasure to know that your name will always be remembered or that they will have a statue built in your honor. Although Caesar was a dictator, he never had a crown. He started taking
After years of skirmishes and attack along their shared borders, the Franks decided to go to war in order to put an end to the dispute for once and for all in 772. The Saxons were not at all like the Franks. Einhard describes them as pagan and uncivilized in every possible way. “Naturally fierce, [worshipping] demons and . . . opposed to [our religion]” (Rosenwein 138). It is important to note that in demonizing his enemies, Einhard reinforces this idea of Charlemagne’s power source being something beyond this world. He is endowed with wisdom and an ability that is near holy. Charlemagne is no longer a man, or even a king, but something more. In 804, the conflict ended once again on Charlemagne’s terms. He ordered the Saxons to give up their pagan ways and accept the Christian religions and they--- as Einhard seems to suggest--- happily obliged. This is yet another fantastic tale of Charles’ conquests. The enemy falling at the king’s feet. He gave a command to the Saxons and followed, and with the decree Charlemagne suddenly is able to unite the people. Obviously, history does not happen this way, but it is Einhard’s voice as an author that tells the audience of the Charlemagne’s larger-than-life
The collection Two Lives of Charlemagne contains two different biographies of Charlemagne who was a king of the Franks and a christian emperor of the West in the 8th century. The first biographical account was written by his courtier Einhard who knew him personally and well. On the other hand, the second account was penned by Notker the Stammerer was born twenty-five years after the king’s death. Even though these two versions indicate the same king’s life, there were many differences between the two. Einhard’s writing focused on the emperor’s official life and his military campaign. However, Notker provided more of a perspective about the king’s legacy and seemed more hyperbolic as well as mythical. This paper will compare and contrast the
Barraclough writes in his research that the Franks spread the notion of a Christian Empire as a unifying force in Europe. The imperial power remained inserted in Carolingian conceptions. The empire claimed to represent Europe and to be a Christian Empire. Delanty agreed and wrote about the fact that the Frankish kingdom was very important for the formation of the medieval Christendom later in history and it reflected the Christian move from the Mediterranean to the North of Europe. As Tierney and Painter mentioned, the coronation of Charlemagne created the symbol for several centuries of unity in western Europe. It symbolized an ordered western Christian society, totally different from the Byzantine or from the Islamic civilizations. With his coronation, Charlemagne's Empire became associated to Christianity. This combination produced a political and cultural identity for Europe, for many centuries. It gave to Europe a civilizational unity. The papacy became the centre of gravity of Europe again. According to Rietbergen, Charlemagne used his predecessors tradition of authority and reviewed them. That's how he established Christianity among all the lands he conquered. The Carolingian empire by spreading Roman Christianity became "a transcontinental church". Northern and central Europe adopted the common Christian ideology which at the time was presented as an universal one. It helped the Papacy to create a common history that according to them was needed. Even Eastern Europe was part of the Christian culture, which under Charlemagne's reign meant that it was part of the European culture. Palmer and Colton, said that, later, in Christian countries people came together within the spreading system of the Latin church. While Tierney and Painter agreed on the fact that Charlemagne forced conquered people to become
Under Charlemagne’s rule, a flourishing Christian Empire was born. After Charlemagne was crowned in 800 by Pope Leo III, Europe became more unified and Christianity was spreading rapidly. Before this cultural spark, Europe was suffering politically, socially and economically. Invaders were common and posed as serious threats to the Europeans. Muslims swept throughout Europe and took over and ruled numerous countries. Charlemagne fought Muslims, Saxons, Avars and Slavs which lead to a better life for many. Charlemagne’s influence was very strong, and even after he died he left Europe with great improvements.
Einhard, in his The Life of Charlemagne, makes clear the fundamental integration of politics and religion during the reign of his king. Throughout his life, Charles the Great endeavored to acquire and use religious power to his desired ends. But, if Charlemagne was the premiere monarch of the western world, why was religious sanction and influence necessary to achieve his goals? In an age when military power was the primary means of expanding one's empire, why did the most powerful military force in Europe go to such great lengths to ensure a benevolent relationship with the church? One possibility may be found in the tremendous social and political influence of Rome and her papacy upon the whole of the continent. Rather than a force to be opposed, Charlemagne viewed the church as a potential source of political power to be gained through negotiation and alliance. The relationship was one of great symbiosis, and both componants not only survived but prospered to eventually dominate western Europe. For the King of the Franks, the church provided the means to accomplish the expansion and reformation of his empire. For the Holy Roman Church, Charles provided protection from invaders and new possibilities for missionary work.